High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban
On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5.
The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'.
Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident, and are due to face trial in early 2027.
Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend.
At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'.
He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'.
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'.
Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court.
Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton.
Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'.
He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'.
At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
£2m bill for legal battle between Earl Spencer's ex-wife and girlfriend
The legal battle between Earl Spencer's estranged wife and his new girlfriend is set to cost more than £2m, a court has heard. Cat Jarman, who has been dating the brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, for almost a year, is suing his third wife after accusing her of sharing private medical information. The Norwegian archaeologist, 43, lodged a High Court claim against Countess Karen Spencer, the Earl's wife of 13 years, last October. She has since alleged that she was forced to reveal her multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis in a high-profile newspaper interview to end gossip online. On Monday, Master Mark Gidden heard that both parties had reached an agreement on future estimated legal costs amounting to more than £2.2m. Kirsten Sjovoll, for Jarman, told the judge the overall agreed future costs for the claimant stood at £1,217,880, while the defendant's legal costs were £1,000,087. The court did not hear how much Jarman is suing the Countess for. The barrister claimed the defendant's legal costs were 'excessively high', noting that Countess Spencer's tally was already exceeding more than half a million. Master Gidden disagreed, noting: 'To my mind, they are costs falling within a range that is to be expected.' Speaking about the apparent discrepancy in spending, Clara Hamer, for Countess Spencer, said: 'Just on the big picture point…when you're dealing with a case of this magnitude and the issues involved that's not such a great gulf.' She claimed Countess Spencer's legal costs so far amounted to £511,404, while Jarman's were £329,365. 'The court is not a slave to comparison,' she went on, adding: 'Similar work in the hands of different legal teams may result in different costs.' Jarman previously revealed she had 'worked very hard indeed' to keep her MS diagnosis hidden from many people she knew, including the Earl, 61, in the early days of their relationship. When she lodged the court case in Autumn last year, the details of her diagnosis remained confidential. She later gave an interview to MailOnline in which she revealed she had the condition, and said in court documents that she was concerned about her 'loss of autonomy and control' over her own medical information. Countess Spencer, meanwhile, accused her estranged husband and Jarman of attempting to 'garner publicity for their relationship' in the press. She said Jarman's decision to give an interview to MailOnline in which she revealed her diagnosis was 'hopelessly inconsistent' with her legal case. 'Deliberately disclosing the fact that she has MS to the world in a manner calculated to give it maximum publicity is not only entirely inconsistent with any claim to privacy, but it also nullifies the ostensible purpose of these proceedings,' the defence reads. The Countess, who was married to the Earl for 13 years and shares a daughter with him, has robustly defended herself against Jarman's allegations. She and the Earl are in the midst of divorce proceedings. The Earl confirmed he was in a relationship with Jarman live on ITV's Good Morning Britain in October last year. The couple later gave an interview about their relationship in November, during which he said she 'brings out the best in me'.
Edinburgh Reporter
5 hours ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Three men arrested in Edinburgh for showing support for a proscribed organisation
Three men have been arrested in Edinburgh under the Terrorism Act 2000 for showing support for a proscribed organisation. Around 1.30pm, a 58-year-old man was arrested by officers in the vicinity of the Scottish Parliament for displaying a sign showing support for a proscribed organisation. Earlier, two men aged 78 and 60 years, were arrested for showing support for a proscribed organisation at a protest in Edinburgh on Saturday, 19 July 2025. Police said that reports will be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal. Like this: Like Related
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
UK ban on Palestine Action is an abuse of power, high court told
An intelligence assessment before Palestine Action was banned under antiterrorism laws found that the vast majority of its activities were lawful, a court has heard. Raza Husain KC, appearing for Huda Ammori, a co-founder of the group said Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group on 5 July was 'repugnant' and an 'authoritarian and blatant abuse of power'. In written submissions for Monday's high court hearing, Husain and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC said: 'On 'nature and scale', the home secretary accepts that only three of Palestine Action's at least 385 actions would meet the statutory definition of terrorism (… itself a dubious assessment).' Husain said it was for the court to consider 'whether that's sufficient or whether it's de minimis (too small to be meaningful) for a group that's been going for five years'. He added that the vast majority of the group's actions were assessed by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre to be lawful. Challenging the ban on the grounds that it contravened freedom of expression and assembly under the European convention on human rights, Ní Ghrálaigh said the proscription had already had a significant impact. 'Dozens and dozens of people have been arrested for protesting, seated and mostly silent protest,' she added. Among the cases she highlighted were protesters near the BAE Systems factory in Samlesbury, Lancashire, who were stopped by police who asked them to remove shirts reading 'Free Palestine' because they might have breached the proscription order. She said a man in Leeds was arrested for carrying a placard reproducing a graphic from Private Eye magazine, which said: 'Unacceptable Palestine Action: Spraying military planes. Acceptable Palestine Action: Shooting Palestinians queueing for food'. Ní Ghrálaigh said Merseyside police had bailed someone on condition they did not 'mention' Palestine. She highlighted the case of Laura Murton, first reported by the Guardian, who was threatened with arrest by armed police for supporting a proscribed organisation because she was holding a Palestinian flag and had signs saying 'Free Gaza' and 'Israel is committing genocide'. Mr Justice Chamberlain said in response: 'This is obviously an officer that doesn't understand the law at all.' Ní Ghrálaigh pointed out that Kent police had not apologised. Ammori's lawyers said the timing of the ban indicated that 'national security risk was not a material factor' and was secondary to 'political considerations'. Although a review body recommended banning Palestine Action on 13 March, Husain and Ní Ghrálaigh said Foreign Office memos had advised 'against moving to implement a decision to proscribe quickly'. This was because proscription might be received poorly domestically and abroad if implemented shortly after Israel's resumption of military action in Gaza. Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, accepted it was true that most of Palestine Action's activities were not terrorism but said: 'The incidents are serious and they're escalating.' He focused almost exclusively on process, telling the court in written submissions: 'Parliament has prescribed the alternative and appropriate remedy namely an appeal to POAC (Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) as the appropriate mechanism for challenging proscription; POAC's procedures are better suited to such a challenge; and there is no good reason for going behind that process in the present case.' Chamberlain said he would give his decision on 30 July on whether to grant Ammori permission for a judicial review.
